What's "Wrong" With User Friendly

MacArthur made this statement almost 10 years ago. His predictive words have not actualized. As he often does, he attacks a straw man.

 

The world has changed. Thirty years ago, most people understood where Christians stood and they knew that they believed in the death and resurrection of Christ. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the moment in which they were ready to accept Christ, the average American was at a 7 or 8. We were more or less a "Christian" culture.

Today, things have radically changed. People generally have a positive view about Christ, but a negative view about Christians. To them, Christianity stands for hypocricy and the image of priests abusing children is fresh in their minds. Don't believe me? Go to the mall and ask 20 30-somthings or younger about their feelings about Christ, and then their feelings about Christianity (we did this with our students this summer.) They'll echo the same thing. On a scale of 1-10, the average person is a 3.

I've been to several "user-friendly" churches. Visitors are welcomed in a way that I just do not see in other churches. IN some of these churches, members park the car of the visitors. In these churches, a member walks a person down to their seat, introducing himself or herself and giving them information about other activities going on during the week. During the service, members are encouraged to welcome the visitors. All of this leads up to the message, and the hope is by that time, the visitor is comfortable enough to really listen to the message.

The sermons of these churches are very applicable to daily life. However, these applications are predicated on God's Word. The sacrifice that was made for them by Jesus Christ is alwayss mentioned - I've never been in a user-friendly church where this was not the case. Hell is often mentioned, although it is in no way presented the way that "fire and brimstone" preachers do it. Their goal is not to scare anyone to salvation, but to show them the power of the cross, as well as the power of the church community.

"User-friendly" churches are getting the Acts 2 church right. So many of our Baptist churches are no more than social clubs, who are not spending any time at all reaching out to a lost and dying world. Personally, I'd rather be part of a church that is accessible to non-believers than to be in a church that is so pleased with their salvation that they keep it to themselves, either by not sharing their faith or by keeping churc service inaccessible.

 

Amen, Scott. That was the best post I've seen in awhile.

 

The FEAR of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.

 

Seeing how unbelievers cannot worship God, it is futile and the product of a foolish mind to think that church is for the lost.

Evangelism is for the lost.

The church is for edification of believers.

Both are for exaltation of Christ.

MacArthur hit the mark on this one and it has certainly proven true. Once you factor in the onslaught of "purpose-driven" churches and the like, the clear thinker understands the issue and can see through the smog.

 

"Worship" services in many SBC churches are more entertainment oriented than ever before. Churches are built like movie theators and no longer is where we worship a sancturay but is now a auditorium.

In many ways Music has become the new transubstatiation for baby boomers. I think MacArthur hit the mark.

 

What churches are you looking at?? Every single one of his comments can be substantiated in a look at many churches across the spectrum today.

 

You can rest assured I have examined far more contemporary churches than 99.9% of this board. Perhaps the better question is: what churches have you looked at? Give us some examples of churches that fit MacArthur's dated stereotype and then we can begin a legitimate discussion.

 

The only problem I had with the above quoted post is that "PHAT" doesn't mean excellent. It's an acrostic.

The letters stand for:

Pretty
Hot
And
Tempting

Maybe this was the authors attempt at showing that he is not as worldy as the subject in which he is speaking.

 

Classic example of assuming a seeker-sensitive church believes "church is for the lost." I know of no one that argues church is strictly for evangelism. If you can show us an example of what you suggest, we can talk about it from that point. I will not hold my breath.

Which is part of the church's responsibility. Remember the church is made up of individuals.

Also part of the church's responsibility. Will you please point me to that text that says the church service is designed exclusively for discipleship?

No one argues otherwise.

To be so clear in your thinking, you certainly have attacked some blatant straw men.

 

Since your words reflect mere opinion, we will take them as such. Opinion noted.

 

That article from John Mac is very good! I agree! I agree with Gunther's remarks,as well. I have these same concerns with the user seeker friendly movement.

Scott,It is not NT at all,it is worldy growth techniques.

Molly

 

Much of the willow creek association; many churches associated with the PDC movement (which in and of itself is good if they were consistent); many of those who have aligned themselves after the Barna philosophy. It is pretty obvious to all but the most jaded. Most people freely admit it and have no problem with it.

There was a recent book about Willow Creek by a guy who attended there over a number of years. I think his name was Pritchett but I can't be sure. He did a kind of concordance on the preaching there and found exactly what MacArthur said.

This is not new stuff. To answer the original question, there is nothing wrong with being user friendly in many cases.

 

A sanctuary is where God lives, which is in us, we are the sanctuary. A building is not a place where God lives. Otherwise we could only worship in that building. And unless your there to see, you hve no idea if the poeple in it are worshiping or not. Or prephaps even if you were there you'd have no idea whats in a persons heart.

 

Amen, Gunther. That was the best post I've seen in awhile.

 

We are speaking on two different planes. My contention with MacArthur's words concerns his overstatement of "watering down the gospel for the sake of baptizing masses, etc."

I am not suggesting there are not different paradigms for doing ministry, proclamation, evangelism, and discipleship. What I am saying is that MacArthur, based upon his own preference, sets fire to a straw man to build his case. For instance, he states

These words just do not reflect reality. If anything, the contemporary church model often has higher demands for those who profess Christ and seek membership in a local church.

I have studied extensively the WC, PDC, Barna, etc. models. Do they have their weaknesses? Obviously. Are they as a whole distorting the gospel? Absolutely not. If you want to provide some specific examples of how the gospel has been tainted, I am willing to discuss them. Until then, I am going to rely upon my first-hand knowledge and not someone else's unsubstantiated opinion.

Just for the record, I love MacArthur's works. I have almost 50 of them. I am not condemning MacArthur. I am simply saying he often argues on this matter against straw men. Even his most recent lectures on this subject reflect arguments against an illusion or an extreme and not the mainline contemporary paradigm.

 

It is not just mere opinion. The Contemporay churches like most of the rest of SBC churches can anot account for over half those they baptize.

I am not so much sure it is Willow Creek or Saddleback influence or if more Charismatic or Vineyard influence. In fairness to Willow Creek, their Sunday service is a outreach while their Thursday night service is more traditional and worship as they will admit. I have problems even with that but that would get us in another discussion.

Even Dr. Robert Webber of Worship Leader Magazine has been critical of this style though not condemning it but urging a more convergence of Contemporay and Traditional. It should be noted that SBC worship has been human centered for years with it's almost sacramental focus on the Finneyite Altar Call. Music has become synomous with Worship and has led to entertainment emphasis.


Rick Warren has at least been at the forefront of abandoning that instrument though his hiding the name Baptist from his church sign and I think Warren is a good man but I think the seeker friendly model is a transition type of worship that will ultimately or hopefully lead to something deeper. Both the Finneyite style (that we often call traditional) and the Contemporay style are lacking something.

 

That would be biblical support and the favor of God.

Btw, I am not against contemporary for the sake of contemporary (modern). However, we all know what the connotation of that word really is, so there is no reason to play with words.

Also, the altar call is pathetic and usually reserved for the arminian / misguided theologian. In all my years of SBC life, this is one of the most troubling.